Friday, April 30, 2010

Girls Just Wanna Have Fun... Without Getting Raped

OK, so clearly I've been more active with the movie reviews, but sometimes life gets so hectic that the thought of ranting about what pisses me off just exhausts me. But I am here to continue on with another thing that makes me oh so angry.

I don't know if any of you know (or care) about this situation with Ben Roethlisberger, who plays for the Pittsburgh Steelers, but here's the gist: He was accused of rape, the girl decided not to continue pressing charges, and there's a whole bunch of dirt kicked up about the NFL sanctioning him or whatnot. Honestly, I don't know the full details of how he's being "disciplined", and I do not care. What I do care about is how people talked about what happened with this girl, and how they talked about girls and drinking, in general. Allow me to show you what has been happening...

Susan Reimer, who writes Commentary pieces for The Baltimore Sun, wrote a piece about two weeks ago called "Old rules don’t apply in Roethlisberger case". Within this piece, she shifts the blame to the victim of Roeth's (I am abbreviating his name, dammit!) attack because of her drunkenness, and proceeds to talk about how certain girls act with their rampant drinking and, perhaps, an item on their person indicating they are "DTF" (down to fuck). The fault is on THESE girls, because one can only assume that if they did not want to be raped, they wouldn't be out drinking a lot or wearing silly things that allude to them being sexually promiscuous.

Reimer ponders:

"When does it become rape? The rules have changed so fast and to such a degree that the law and the older generation are without a clue, and it has become tougher to assign blame, much less criminal charges, which in Georgia come with a minimum 25 years in prison.

Remember when "No" meant "No," even if she had said "Yes" 10 times before or 10 minutes before? That doesn't work if both parties are so drunk they might not be able to identify each other the next day, let alone remember whether permission was granted the night before."

Allow me to clarify, Ms. Reimer: rape is when the victim says no, or is unable to consent. Yes, that includes being too drunk to consent. If someone spiked her drink and she got so wasted that she couldn't say no, would that not be considered rape? Does it matter if she was the one who dictated how much alcohol she knowingly put into her body? No. If she was unable to give consent/said no, she was raped.

Reimer continues: "Remember when a woman's character or sexual history was not relevant? But what does a "DTF" button say?"

It says that she has class and taste issues. It doesn't say she's looking to get raped, nor does it excuse the man's behaviour in this situation.

The supposed details of the story indicate, in every way, that a rape occurred. Whether or not it did is clearly important, but it doesn't matter in this rant. The way that Ms. Reimer talked about the woman has nothing to do with her believing the girl was full of shit, and have everything to do with victim-blaming, which is revolting and, sadly, rampant in this country.

A few months ago, NPR did a horrific piece on rapes on college campuses. The rape of intoxicated women on college campuses is hardly rare, but what is surprisingly rare is how often the men accused of said rapes are held accountable for their actions. What is even more alarming is that these men are often accused numerous times--same for Roeth, by the way--by different victims, and nothing is done about it (or very little). And it seems to be because of the way our culture views women who "party".

Jaclyn Friedman, a very vocal feminist, was asked to comment on a CNN piece about living in a "dirty girl" culture. The piece describes the "scary" trend that seems to be on the rise, described as, "Young women who are rude, crude and sometimes very, very drunk. Are we living in a “dirty girl” culture?" The piece questions if the adoption of frat-boy behaviour is a form of "female empowerment", which they apparently found some 20 year-old girl to validate. But when they quoted Jaclyn, I was appalled at this supposed-feminist:

CNN anchor: "She says women having fun and making stupid mistakes is one thing, but adopting destructive, raunchy behavior is, well – scary."

Jaclyn: “When it comes to sexual assault, most rapists use alcohol to facilitate sexual assault.”

This was the first time I had ever heard of Jaclyn, and I was appalled at what she seemed to be saying. Little did I know that it was CNN framing things to better suit their story. Jaclyn wrote in to CNN to set the record straight, and I whole-heartedly agree with her.

Our culture is still trying to hold onto this idea of women as dainty and fragile. Women are not supposed to act like frat boys, and if they do, they are clearly asking for trouble. There are all sorts of things women are told throughout their lives, starting when they are pretty young, about how to 'protect' themselves from getting raped: don't go out alone, watch your drink, don't get drunk, don't wear slutty clothes, etc. These are good tips, and are certainly important for anyone's safety, not just women's. But that also puts the fault back on the victim if she does not comply.

To quote directly from Jaclyn:

"Every woman is going to sometimes choose short-term fun – even "bad" fun – over the abstract risk that someone might do something violent to us. We're all human. We'll inevitably take risks to have fun sometimes. What's not inevitable is that men will do violence to us while we're at it. If you want to keep girls safe, holding men responsible for their behavior is the place to start.

For example, did you know that, according to one study, if alcohol is involved in a sexual assault, the assailant is slightly more likely than the victim to have been drinking? And yet where are the messages telling boys not to get so drunk they can't tell if their partner is consenting?"

Why isn't it troublesome that young men are getting so trashed that they pass out or do things like force themselves on women? Why aren't people focusing on the rise of "rowdy" men who are targeting drunk women? Why are we even talking about women drinking, partying, and "being raunchy?" Are women only allowed to accuse someone of rape if they are angelic? This double-standard is ridiculous.

This relates directly back to the NPR piece. And, furthermore, Jaclyn refers to a terrifying situation that NPR has covered in other discussions about rape:

Psychologist David Lasik from the University of Massachusetts asked 2,000 men over a 20 year period questions like this: "Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated [on alcohol or drugs] to resist your sexual advances?" He also asked: "Have you ever had sexual intercourse with an adult when they didn't want to because you used physical force [twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.] if they didn't cooperate?"

About 1 in 16 men answered "yes" to these or similar questions. None of these men had ever been to jail or formally accused of rape.

This is the rape culture we face these days. Women are to blame because they put themselves in danger of being attacked, but why does that absolve the men? Alcohol doesn't rape women--rapists rape women. Each person has a responsibility to their partner to make sure sex is consensual, regardless of the situation. And excusing rape when alcohol is involved is something that is so disgustingly common that rapists actually count on that reaction when they target intoxicated women. I'm not saying that women shouldn't be at all accountable when they get so trashed that they become easy targets, but that hardly makes it their fault, nor does it excuse the people who decide it's appropriate to rape them. If a woman is drunk and making bad decisions, her body is a free-for-all playground? She no longer has control over it and cannot dictate who can have sex with her? This is how we treat these sorts of rape, and it has to stop.

I hate to keep stealing from Jaclyn, but she describes rape culture so well in this blog entry:

"Gossip blogger Perez Hilton is already suggesting she may be a lying golddigger. That’s rape culture. As this woman’s case proceeds, her body, her actions, her mental state, motives and her history will be put on public trial in a way that would never happen if she were accusing someone of kidnapping or attempted murder. That’s rape culture. When women are too afraid of being re-victimized by the courts and the media to come forward, and when the public gets the message that women who accuse men of rape are lying or did something to deserve it, the cycle continues."

This needs to stop. I'm not saying that every time a woman screams "rape" that we have to assume it is true and automatically imprison the accused. But dismissing the seriousness of rape just because alcohol was involved is abhorrent. Everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes someone gets too drunk and passes out. It doesn't give me the right to do whatever I wish with their body. It doesn't give me the right to take advantage of them. And, if I'm drunk, and I decide to do something to that person that I wouldn't do if I were sober (and the person is either incapacitated or clearly says no), I am still responsible for my actions. Drinking so much that you do something silly or cannot keep your head up is one thing--drinking so much that you rape a person is entirely different. And failing to appropriately handle young men after they engage in that sort of activity only encourages them to continue to victimize other women using the same tactics. It's time to change the way we think about rape and start holding people accountable, drunk or not.

9 comments:

  1. Woo, more reasons why alcohol is such fail.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not alcohol. It's the people. Alcohol may make people behave differently, but I can tell you that I have been out-of-my-mind-drunk before and I have never tried to force myself upon anyone. Yes, people should be careful with alcohol, but it's not what is to blame for these situations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Panda, you know how I get about rape. So, instead of getting into a whole discussion about it at the moment, I will just leave this link.

    http://feminally.tumblr.com/search/sexual+assault+tips

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The crime of rape...generally refers to non-consensual [sex] that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress. A lack of consent can include the victim's inability to say "no" to intercourse, due to the effects of drugs or alcohol."(Source)

    Consent is hard to define in a way that applies to every scenario. Although in most cases, consent is clear, there are some scenarios which push the boundaries. An extreme example would be a couple who are rape fetishists. Their sex life is built around the idea of non-consent, but obviously consent exists. How, in such a case, could you prove consent by anything other than post-coital testimony? That problem intersects tragically with the alcohol-fueled antics of some people. Hypothetically, two equally drunk people can have awkward, regrettable sex and then accuse each other of rape the next morning. What's the truth?

    If one party is so drunk as to be unresponsive, then it's obviously rape as defined above, because there is a clear "inability to say 'no'." However, what about when both parties are drunk enough to no longer be of sound mind, but still sober enough to have sex with one another. It presents a gray area that simple pronouncements like "Rape is rape" do nothing to get beyond. The drunkenness of both parties makes a fair determination challenging by default.

    Of course, real life isn't as convenient as a hypothetical scenario and in this case, there was an obvious imbalance. I get the impression that Roeth' was less drunk than the alleged victim, his companions no doubt acted as enablers, and he demonstrated a habit of inappropriate and undesired behavior prior to the act. All of that weighs against him. However, being an overly sexual, unctuous fellow does not make him guilty. The alleged victim's own initial statement said that she told him, "I don't know if [having sex] is a good idea." Those are her words, and although I haven't read the whole statement, I'd be very wary of considering that statement to be an indication of a lack of consent. Combined with struggling and other resistance, yes, but on its own it's too vague to expect the average person to interpret that as a clear "No." In her defense, the fact that she apparently reported the crime right it had allegedly occurred gives the impression that she had consistently not consented.

    Interestingly, and illustrative of the point I was making in my second paragraph, the alleged victim later remembered (presumably after sobering up) that she had said, "No, this is not OK." That is a clear sign of non-consent, but coming in a second statement gives it less weight in my opinion. It's important to distinguish between non-consent and regret.

    One area I've always considered irrelevant is clothing. I don't know why commentators often latch on to a person's appearance as if a vulgar button and a miniskirt are to be interpreted as signs of consent.

    As to your other point, the accused are not criticized for drinking heavily in these cases, because it's the victim who is seen as upsetting "the peace" with an accusation (for better or worse). This applies to either gender. Accusations of sexual assault always upset "the peace," and so greater scrutiny tends to fall to the victim (the one making the accusation). This applies to other crimes in different ways. For example if I get drunk and am mugged, the expected reaction is for people to ask why I allowed myself to be victimized, not an immediate demonization of the muggers. I think it's more a matter of psychology than sexism, but it's hard to say.

    Personally, I'm not a fan of excessive drinking by either gender and, by default, I have little sympathy for adults who are victimized or injure themselves while drunk.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's not about regrettable sex--it's about being too inebriated to say no or being so drunk that you might first say yes and THEN say no.

    I also said whether or not the Roeth case is actually one of rape is irrelevant--it was about how the assumption is that drunk girls cannot claim rape, or it's not so much an issue of rape with alcohol. That's how people are talking about it, and I have a problem with that.

    And yes, they were accused of drinking heavily. The entire commentary I linked to had to do with "drunk". She said "drunk happened". And what is "upsetting the peace"??? And why is it that women are so much more ridiculous for doing so when drunk? And I wholeheartedly disagree with you about how people are treated when they claim crimes have been committed against them. "MY FRIEND HAS BEEN MURDERED!" "Oh? What did you or your friend do to lead them to being murdered?" How about "I was walking along the street and I was mugged!" "Oh? Why did you let yourself get mugged?" You know what? Those are still crimes REGARDLESS OF YOUR BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT. The law doesn't absolve you of crimes just because the person who was victimized was drunk. I explicitly said that those who put themselves in dangerous positions like that deserve some amount of "blame", but that's the blame for being in a bad situation. The only person to blame for any of these crimes, such as RAPE, is the person committing the crime.

    Just because I am drunk doesn't give you the right to violate my body.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just because a person is drunk it does not mean they deserve to have a crime committed against them. Being drunk does not equal consent, nor does a drunk person "deserve" to be raped. After it is all said and done, rape is still rape. The person who was raped still deserves respect and justice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I heard a debate on NPR over an editorial in a college newspaper in which a writer had said something to the effect that a woman putting herself in such a bad situation is essentially giving consent, since she should have a reasonable expectation that sex is of interest to her fellow party goers. I disagree with that and the idea that drunk women who are raped are somehow illegitimate victims. However, I acknowledge the difficulty in finding out the truth when sex "partners" aren't in a proper frame of mind. I feel like on one side you have people arguing "RAPE IS A CRIME DON'T BLAME THE VICTIM," and on the other are people shouting "SHE WAS DRUNK AND DRESSED LIKE A WHORE!" Neither position really addresses the fact that sometimes we'll never know if a rape even occurred, and nobody is likely to end up satisfied by the results of an investigation.

    I don't consider rape with alcohol less of an issue. My point was that sometimes it becomes impossible by default to separate non-consenual drunk sex from drunk sex in which one or both parties revoke consent after the fact (even immediately after or during). Sure it's easy to just say that any sex between people who are that drunk is "non-consenual," but that seems too broad to me. Notice that in my analysis of this case, I relied more on the circumstances of the event, i.e. his behavior, his friends, the quick filing of a police report, etc, and it led me to the conclude that it was a situation where sex was much more likely to be forced than consenual. Unfortunately, had this been a drunken frat party date rape involving two average, equally drunk people, there would be little rationale for believing either side.

    "Upsetting the peace" is just a catchall term used to describe a situation in which something upsetting happens to disrupt normal life. Ignore it if you wish.

    To address the issues of scrutinizing the victim and not the accused in some instances, I wasn't saying that it has any relevance on guilt. Obviously if I stumble down an alley drunk and get mugged, a crime has still occurred. Obviously I am not to blame for a criminal choosing to steal my money. However, the point was that many people would likely scrutinize my actions before scrutinizing the actions of the person who mugged me. You say that you recognize blame should rest partly on the one drinking in some cases and yet asked rhetorically why the drinking habits of the ones accused are not equally scrutinized. That's all I was addressing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There are always times when rape cases are hard to determine, whether or not alcohol is involved. Dismissing the case because the girl was drunk is just a ridiculous way to handle these situations, and allows the accused men to have free reign over any drunk girl they can find (or use alcohol in order to be "protected" while they attack women).

    "My point was that sometimes it becomes impossible by default to separate non-consenual drunk sex from drunk sex in which one or both parties revoke consent after the fact (even immediately after or during)." Darling, both of those scenarios are rape. Revoking consent at any point without the person stopping = rape, regardless of one's BAC.

    I questioned why the drinking habits of the accused are not scrutinized because the only scrutiny being applied right now is to those who are drinking and getting raped. If we're going to freak out about drunkenness and rape, why isn't is across the board? And if we're going to blame someone in a rape case for being drunk, why are we not blaming the attacker?

    It's a shame that people DO question the accuser before the accused, which I think plays a big part in why rape is terribly underreported.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am just going to second everything you just said, Panda. Also, yes, the fact that people are so quick to blame and/or question the accuser before the accused is one of the reasons rape is underreported. In my class on Deviancy, this way of dealing with the accuser was known as a "second rape," though I do think referring to it in such a way is a bit harsh.

    ReplyDelete